Former Bayelsa East Senator, Ben Murray-Bruce, has advised the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, and his Labour Party (LP) counterpart, Peter Obi, to accept President Bola Tinubu’s leadership.

Murray-Bruce gave the advice in a post on his verified X (formerly Twitter) handle on Wednesday while reacting to the final outcome of the 2023 presidential election tribunal.

He stated that the tribunal verdict had cleared all doubts about the strength and validity of Tinubu’s mandate, adding that the former Lagos Governor is the duly elected and undisputed President of Nigeria.

The Chairman of SilverBird Group, however, called on Atiku and Obi to eschew their selfish considerations and work with the Tinubu government to move the nation forward.

He wrote: “Our elections don’t have to end in the courts. But now that we have found ourselves in this position, and the courts have spoken, let us put national interest above self-interest, accept the verdict, and move on so the nation can advance.

“Bola Ahmed Tinubu is the duly elected and undisputed President of Nigeria, and this judgment should settle all questions and erase all doubts.”

Murray-Bruce, an ally of Atiku, said his party’s presidential candidate should demonstrate his statesmanship by conceding defeat like former President Goodluck Jonathan in the interest of democracy and the nation.

“Once elections have been held and a winner is announced, we must follow the Jonathan doctrine and accept the people’s verdict in the interest of democracy and the nation,” he said.

He also commended the judges for doing a good job of strengthening the country’s democracy, especially since they said no sufficient evidence was tendered proving fraud and widespread non-compliance with electoral regulations.

“I commend the judges of the Presidential Election Petition Court for doing a challenging job exceptionally well. It was democracy that won. So, I commend both the President and his challengers.

“Coincidentally, this verdict is coming as the President marks a hundred days in office, days that have been eventful, effective and decisive. And now, without this unnecessary uncertainty hanging over his head, we can expect even better days.

“Finally, I call on supporters of all the parties to this now settled case to be mindful of recent events on our continent and thus tailor their words and actions to promote the peace, progress and prosperity of Nigeria as one democratic and united nation under God,” he said.

[NaijaNews]

Al-Nassr striker, Cristiano Ronaldo has said his rivalry with Lionel Messi “is gone” having both already “changed the history of football.”

The two footballers have dominated for over a decade.

Between themselves, Ronaldo and Messi have won a combined 79 trophies and are the only two players to have scored over 800 goals each.

“I don’t see things like that, the rivalry is gone,” Ronaldo said.

“It was good, the spectators liked it.

“Those who like Cristiano Ronaldo don’t have to hate Messi and vice versa. We’ve done well, we have changed the history of football. We are respected all over the world, that’s the most important thing,” he added.

Ronaldo left European football for Saudi Arabia in January this year, after his contract at Manchester United was terminated.

Messi, who won the 2022 World Cup, joined Inter Miami CF in June as a free agent after two seasons at Paris Saint-Germain.

He became the most decorated football player when he won his 44th trophy after helping the MLS club lift the 2023 Leagues Cup in August.

[DailyPost]

ON Wednesday, September 6, the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal, PEPT, delivered judgement in the petitions filed by Atiku Abubakar and the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Peter Obi and the Labour Party, and the Allied Peoples Movement, APM, challenging the declaration of Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress, APC, winner of the February 25 presidential poll.

It is instructive that the ruling came exactly on the day the respondent, Bola Tinubu, marked his 100th day in office as President. It is also worth noting that as the judgement was being delivered in Abuja, Tinubu who ordinarily should be in the eye of the storm, was in far-away New Delhi, India, where he is representing Nigeria on an observer status at the summit of the group of 20 most industrialised nations, G20, the premier forum for international economic cooperation, on the invitation of the incumbent chairman, Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India.

I doubt if there is any Nigerian who was in doubt what the outcome of the case would be. Before he left Nigeria for India on Monday, Tinubu’s spokesman, Ajuri Ngelale, told Nigerians that his principal was “not worried” about the outcome of the court matter. The braggadocio of the Tinubu loyalists in the week leading up to the judgement day pointed to the fact that they were sure of the outcome.

As the PEPT was delivering its judgement on Wednesday, a friend of mine, a senior lawyer, sent me a text enquiring if I was watching it on television. He said the judges couldn’t even have done a better job as defence attorneys. I asked him if the judiciary can ever be redeemed and his answer was a categorical No!

I was saddened. Make no mistake about it. I have never believed that Nigerian courts are capable of delivering justice particularly in matters of high-octane political value like this one. So, I was not saddened because I was disappointed. No! But to realise that many lawyers are increasingly losing faith in the ability of the courts to deliver justice is a bad omen.

I have had discussions in recent times with many politicians who have been in courts either defending their “mandates” as declared by the electoral umpire or trying to retrieve their alleged “stolen mandates”. It has been a tale of woes on both sides. The only determinant factor is money – loads of money.

But the outcome of this case should worry any well-meaning Nigerian because it impugns on our so-called democracy. For democracy to be “government of the people, by the people, for the people” as former U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, noted in his famous Gettysburg address on November 19, 1863, the votes of the people must be the sole determinant of who gets elected. That is not the case in Nigeria, as indeed it is not in many other African countries, where elections are not free and fair.

In every milieu where might is right, and those who are powerful can do what they wish unchallenged, even if their action is, in fact, unjustified, woe betides anyone who stands in their way. That is clearly the case with our dear country where a few people have totally captured the state. There is everything wrong with our democracy. In a country where there is no difference between private and public purse, swearing in “winners” of a contentious election before the final determination is made in court is injurious not only to the so-called losers but the Nigerian state itself.

All the odds are against the petitioners. Attempt by the National Assembly in 2014 to make a law that would make the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, take the responsibility of proving the conduct and regularity of elections in the country before the election petitions tribunal or the court failed. If that Bill had scaled through, the resultant Act would have placed the burden of proof on the INEC, instead of the litigants. It would have also reduced the difficulties petitioners normally face while trying to get the necessary documentary evidence in support of their petitions.

In their ruling, yesterday, the five Justices blamed the petitioners for not producing enough evidence of electoral malfeasance even when they were well aware that the Professor Mahmoud Yakubu-led INEC blatantly refused to avail them those documents, flagrantly disobeying the Tribunal’s order. While the alleged losers who, for all I care, may indeed be the winners are further stretched financially in courts, those that have been declared winners, who may indeed be the losers, make use of public funds in defending their “mandates” in court.

Not only that, they deploy the resources of the state – human and material – maximally. As it is the case in this instant case, Tinubu has been using the enormous privileges and powers conferred on him by the office of the presidency to consolidate power and entrench himself. He sacked the Service Chiefs and appointed his loyalists. In a country where the military swear allegiance to the President rather than the Constitution, and are only interested in regime protection rather than protection of the Nigerian state, wielding the coercive powers of the state makes all the difference.

Immediately the PEPT announced the judgement date, the Department of State Services, DSS, issued an ominous warning against anyone who may have the appetite to protest the ruling. Before Tinubu jetted out to India, he had a meeting with all the Service Chiefs behind closed doors. The military top brass came out of the meeting to warn would-be “troublemakers”.

While the petitioners were finding it difficult to make a headway in the case, the President was busy making juicy appointments and dispensing political patronages. Prince Lateef Fagbemi, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, one of Tinubu’s lawyers at the tribunal, is now the Attorney General of the Federation, AGF, and Minister of Justice. Even presidential candidates of some political parties are seriously lobbying President Tinubu for a slice of the national cake and pledging their unalloyed loyalty.

I doubt if there is any Nigerian who sincerely believed that the PEPT will sack Tinubu. And yesterday’s judgement will only be a fait accompli at the Supreme Court should the petitioners decide to go on appeal. Those who insist that what happened at the Tribunal on Wednesday is evidence that Nigeria is still groping in the dark, may not be wrong after all. Someone quipped: “After seeing this, do you still want to waste time on Nigeria’s judiciary and questionable politicians?” Some do but I don’t. Tinubu has wangled his way to the presidency and used the judiciary to legitimise his position.

Ours is a democracy where the people have no say. As a pall of silence descends on Nigeria once again as it was the case when Prof Yakubu declared the presidential election result in the wee hours of the morning when most people were asleep, highly distraught but subdued Nigerians will pick the pieces of their lives and move on. But I foresee danger. Aside Nigerians like myself who have vowed never to vote again in any Nigerian election and the attendant voter apathy, those who are still foolhardy to throw their hat into the electoral ring may decide that henceforth every electoral battle must be waged, won or lost at the polling booth rather than waiting for INEC to make a declaration and embark on a wild goose chase at the courts. When the judiciary wittingly or unwillingly takes the role of democracy undertakers, that is a recipe for anarchy!

Super Eagles forward, Victor Osimhen has become the first Nigerian male footballer in 24 years to get nominated for the prestigious Ballon d’Or award as Super Falcons star, Asisat Oshoala also got nominated for the 2023 Ballon d’Or women’s player of the year award for the second successive year.

The Super Eagles star striker, who has scored 17 goals in 25 international appearances, becomes the first Nigerian to be nominated for the prestigious prize since Nwankwo Kanu in 1999.

The Napoli forward also becomes the 7th Nigerian male footballer and 8th Nigerian player to earn a Ballon D’Or award nomination after Finidi George (1995), Austin Jay-Jay Okocha (1995), Daniel Amokachi (1995), Nwankwo Kanu (1996, 1999), Victor Ikpeba (1997), Sunday Oliseh (1998), and Asisat Oshoala(2022, 2023).

It was a historic day for Nigeria as Osimhen restored the glory of the Super Eagles since 1999 and Oshoala continued to stamp her feet as the best African player after she wrote her name in the history books by becoming the first female African player to get the Ballon d’Or nomination in 2022, finishing in the 16th position among the shortlisted 30 players.

Oshoala, who is the reigning Africa women’s player of the year, scored 21 goals in just 28 games to lead FC Barcelona to the 2022/23 Spanish league title and was the Spanish club’s top-scorer with 27 goals in all competitions.

The 28-year-old was instrumental as Barcelona retained their domestic title and won the UEFA Women’s Champions League.

At the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup in Australia and New Zealand, 5-time record African Player of the Year award winner Oshoala made history as the first Nigerian and first female African player to score at three different editions of the FIFA World Cup. She has now scored 31 goals and won the Women’s African Cup of nations three times with the Super Falcons.

Super Eagles striker, Victor Osimhen makes the list of 30 star players nominated for the 2023 Ballon d’Or men’s award alongside Inter Miami forward, Lionel Messi and Man City forward Erling Haaland.

The Napoli striker scored 26 Serie A goals last season to guide the Partenopei to the Scudetto for the first time in more than three decades.

Nigerian forward, Victor Osimhen has been nominated alongside Inter Miami forward, Lionel Messi and Man City forward Erling Haaland for the 2023 Ballon d’Or men’s award.

Osimhen is currently one of the best players in Europe and he is in superb form, continuing his goalscoring form at Napoli where he has now scored 62 goals in 103 appearances.

The Nigerian striker scored 26 goals and added 4 assists in 32 league appearances to emerge as the highest goal scorer and lead Partenopei to their first Serie A title in 33 years.

The 24-year-old was the first African player to achieve the feat he is also currently the highest-scoring African in the Italian top flight after eclipsing the old record set by former Cameroon legend Samuel Eto’o.

Osimhen will compete with favourite and seven-time Ballon d’Or winner Messi and a plethora of other European superstars.

The Ballon d’Or ceremony will take place at the Theatre du Chatelet in Paris on October 30.

The winners of the Ballon d’Or 2023 will be announced on this day.

Anyone who has seen enough of Nigerian history and politics would have known beforehand how Wednesday would unfold. Despite all the build-up of anticipation in some quarters, the procedure of presidential electoral petition tribunals is standard: they deliver their judgment (expectedly in favour of the incumbent), analysts will dissect the verdict for days (maximum, a week), and all the while regular life will go on without missing a tempo. Every presidential election since 1999 has been a subject of litigation, and each has unfurled in virtually the same way. If the tribunal does not rule on substance, they will do so on technicalities. Either way, there was no dislodging an incumbent.

Going to the tribunal for Peter Obi of the Labour Party and Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party was thus tricky right from the start. There is virtually no reasonable person who did not see the defectiveness of the election. Nigerians saw it; foreign observers affirmed as much. Yet, going to court does not mean a receiver of stolen goods would be dispossessed of their loot. Presidential election petitions are adjudged, not based on the integrity of their conduct, but on the presumption that the declared winner would still have won despite the irregularities. Contesting an election in court, even when you are unsure of victory, does no more than officially register your discontent. If you do not formalise your grievance, the declared winner (and their followers) will take the acquiescence as proof of the legitimacy of the election. They would have publicly reasoned that if their opponents had any worthwhile evidence to the contrary, they would have challenged the results in the courts. At the same time, by litigating, contenders risk looking like bitter losers. My attitude to these things is that if it does not matter either way, you might as well do it anyway.

Yet one wonders why this time feels so different that some members of the judiciary and government officials thought it was worth undercutting the public expectations one way or the other. Partisans would, of course, write off the dissidence of a section of the public as mere delusions but discerning minds will probe why people became overly invested in the election petition process even when our history is instructive enough. My thought is that what people are looking for is not just judgment but justice, a sense that is wrong with the polity can still be righted. But what about the present political atmosphere is making people look for a breakdown of the existing order?

Looking beyond Nigeria for a moment, one finds that the “miracle” of bringing an abrupt end to the existing oppressive political order that people wanted the presidential election tribunal to perform is what the coups springing up on the continent are currently achieving. There is a good reason no one, except political elites of course, is bemoaning the erosion of democracy in different parts of Africa where the military has taken over. The ousted President of Gabon, Ali Bongo, gave himself away as another out-of-touch-with-reality political elite when he made a video asking people to protest on his behalf. Other than himself and his cronies, for whom is the coup that has stripped him of his privilege and power a loss? Say what you choose about the abomination of coups, but they satiate the desire of those who want cosmic justice in a socio-political arrangement that does nothing more than diminish them. Take away the partisanship of religious and tribal sentiments in Nigeria, and you will find that most of us are similarly disillusioned.

That is because our politics no longer represent our political identities or aspirations. It has morphed into a monstrosity, feeding on our hopes, dreams, and collective potential, all the while acquiring a strength that makes it difficult to dislodge. That ordinary citizens saw judicial intervention as a means to end the present political arrangement suggests they are yearning for—as far as democratic institutions go anyway—a force of power that can upturn the ongoing oppressive order. I wonder if the judiciary, in writing Wednesday’s judgment, apprehended the nature of the discontent or this all was just for them a technical procedure of interpreting the law?

Judging by how retired Supreme Court judge Mary Odili tried to school everyone on the issue at a Sunday event, I am unsure this reads to them as anything more than what subsists in a day’s work. While speaking regarding the presidential election tribunal, she expressed hope that “when the seasons (of elections and attendant litigations) are gone, the court gets back to their natural and regular duties of adjudication regarding the affairs, and rights of all persons irrespective of their status in life.” Well, while the people her speech targeted will expectedly move past the verdict, the cynicism with which they have regarded the judiciary in the past months (and which culminated in the “all eyes on the judiciary” campaign the government tried to repress) will keep corroding trust in the institution. There is really no “moving on” here.

Some other examples do not show that judicial officers are taking the public criticism they have received in good faith. In February for instance, when some critics took up the Supreme Court on some curious judgments it had delivered in recent times, the institution responded with an arrogant, condescending, and—unfortunately too—a tawdrily written piece that called the professionalism of that institution into judgment.

Roughly a month ago too, the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria ordered that the “all eyes on the judiciary” billboards be pulled down. ARCON went as far as suspending top officials who approved the billboards and disbanding their unit. The overkill suggests that the moral pressuring the billboard sought to achieve was effective. The ARCON director-general who ordered the measures, Olalekan Fadolapo, claimed that the campaign is “considered a blackmail against the Nigerian judiciary, the presidential election petition tribunal and particularly the justices of the tribunal who are expected to discharge their judicial functions without fear or favour over a matter that is currently jus pendis.”

In a society where government agencies and officials routinely flaunt court directives, who really is in a better position to “blackmail” judges? Is it the faceless people who put up a billboard or those with actual political power who can cow judges to submission? Fadolapo must have been on vacation out of the planet when a senator, Adamu Bulkachuwa, stood up in the hollowed chamber of the National Assembly and indiscreetly confessed that, as Appeal Court president, his wife extended favours to his lawmaker colleagues.

Senator Bulkachawa openly admitted what everyone knew all along: judicial outcomes are about the network of influence and not necessarily the law. Female judges, especially the ones married to politicians, are particularly vulnerable in this respect because there is a limit to which they can resist political pressure from their own husbands. Mrs Bulkachawa, of course, disowned her husband’s loose mouth but his unprompted statement already gave them away as influence peddlers.

In a country where the law is studiously observed that faux pas would end their careers. She would face a judicial panel, and every case she ever presided over would be subjected to review. In Nigeria, nothing happened. Mind you, the people who got away with such egregiousness are those Fadolapo thinks can be “blackmailed” by a mere billboard!

Rather than merely moving on, the judiciary owes it to itself to at least make some effort to understand that setting all eyes on the judiciary is a search for justice, for meaning, and for righteousness. Ignoring it will not make it go away. It just means a time will come when they take their eyes off the judiciary and become a law unto themselves.

The United States National Intelligence Council once provoked outrage in Nigeria when it published a May 2005 controversial report, ‘Mapping Sub-Saharan Africa’s Future’. Under the sub-heading ‘Downside Risks’, the report stated that “while currently Nigeria’s leaders are locked in a bad marriage that all dislike but dare not leave, there are possibilities that could disrupt the precarious equilibrium in Abuja. The most important would be a junior officer coup that could destabilize the country to the extent that open warfare breaks out in many places in a sustained manner.” 

Quite naturally, many Nigerians were aghast by the US report coming just six years after the exit of the military. In his response at the time, then President Olusegun Obasanjo dismissed most of the assumptions that informed the conclusion. But he also noted most poignantly: “It is important for us to know that we are being rated low, not because of what is happening to us from outside but because of what we do to, for and by ourselves internally…” Whatever he may have meant, my reading of Obasanjo’s response is that whether as individuals or as a nation, we are the architects of our own fortunes or misfortunes.  

It is within that context that I want to situate what is fast becoming an open invitation for military takeover of power on the continent, following recent palace coups in both Niger Republic and Gabon. In a trending video titled ‘Togo should be next’, a young Togolese x-rayed political developments in his country—where Faure Gnassingbe who succeeded his father, Gnassingbe Eyadema in 2005 is now also plotting for his son to succeed him—and concluded with a question on the seriousness of both ECOWAS and the African Union. He extended his analysis to Equatorial Guinea, where President Teodore Obiang Nguema Mbasogo (who first came to power through a military coup in 1979 before winning a succession of sham elections) “has appointed his son as vice president, heir apparent and successor”, Cote D’Voire where President Alassane Ouattara has manipulated both the legislature and judiciary to give himself an extraconstitutional third term and Cameroon where the 90-year-old Paul Biya remains in power after 41 years despite being marooned mostly in Geneva, Switzerland. When you add Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni who has been in power since 1986, Congo’s Denis Sassou Nguesso, also in his fifth decade in power, Eritrea’s Isaias Afwerki who has been president since independence in 1993 and others, you get a picture of a continent where power holders are not accountable to the people. 

Of course, the situation in Nigeria is different from the scenario painted by the Togolese because we hold periodic elections in our country.  No president has been able to stay beyond two terms of eight years—though not for lack of trying. We have also had an incumbent president defeated in an election. However, disappointment with the outcome of the 2023 general election has apparently led some of our young people to also engage in coup-baiting. It is a dangerous gambit. Most of us may not have witnessed the coup and countercoup that upended the First Republic and shattered the peace and prosperity of Nigeria, but we were around during the military era preceding the Second Republic in 1979 and the period after, between December 1983 and May 1999. The experience of those years is enough for us to say ‘Never Again’ to any suggestion of military rule in our country. That we can even talk about military coup is one of the dividends of democracy. Under the military, any journalist who wrote a column with my chosen headline would not sleep in his house that day, assuming he survives to tell the story.  

I am aware that the only government most Nigerians (given our demographics) have experienced is the current civilian dispensation that is now 24 years old. But it is important to understand that things are not going to get better should there be a coup in Nigeria. Things are likely to get worse, on all counts. Under a military regime, the first thing to be suspended is the Constitution and the rights and liberties it confers on citizens. Suppression of the media will be automatic, and the courts will lose the limited powers they have to adjudicate over those freedoms. Military rule is about impunity and those who can abuse their authority to deny fellow citizens their fundamental rights would have no qualms appropriating to themselves what belongs to the public. With decrees and edicts, crimes and punishment can be invented at will to deal with ‘subversive elements’—just about anybody who disagrees with them. Retroactive laws, including to kill citizens (as it happened to Bartholomew Owoh, Lawal Ojuolape and Bernard Ogedengbe) and torture could become routine again. On the economic front, things will likely spiral out of control because of international pressure and sanctions that would follow, as we saw in the nineties.  

General Abdulsalami Abubakar was the last military leader in Nigeria, only stepping in after the death of General Sani Abacha to restore civil rule within ten months as promised. So, effectively, the last military regime in Nigeria, in the real sense of it, was that of the late Abacha. Interested readers can download free copies of my book, ‘The Last 100 Days of Abacha’ from my web portal, olusegunadeniyi.com, for glimpses of what transpired when the resources and institutions of state were pressed into the service of one man and his political aspiration.

At that dark period in our history, Nigeria was rendered a pariah state, with the economy in tatters.  But it was in Abacha’s attempt to foist himself on us as another African ‘life president’ that we were confronted with unprecedented brutality.  As I wrote on the 20^th anniversary of his death in 2018, so bizarre was the transition programme of 1997/98 that all five registered political parties, (dubbed ‘five fingers of a leprous hand’ by the late Chief Bola Ige) adopted Abacha as their sole presidential candidate. In a memorable interview he granted CNN at the period, Nobel Laureate, Prof Wole Soyinka said: “If I had written this scenario in a play, I would have been ridiculed.”  

Given what we went through under Abacha, I doubt there is any Nigerian of my generation (regardless of ethnicity or religion) who would ever wish for military rule in our country. It was a period when journalists, civil society activists and the few principled politicians in the country were targeted for arrest or outright killing. A professional colleague, Bagauda Kaltho was bombed to death in Kaduna. Mrs Kudirat Abiola, Mr Alfred Rewane, Dr Shola Omatsola and many others were assassinated in Lagos. Major General Shehu Musa Yar’Adua (rtd) was jailed alongside Obasanjo and others for plotting a phantom coup and the former was injected with a deadly virus to ensure he would only leave Abakaliki Prison in a bodybag. Mr Ken Saro Wiwa and others were hanged despite pleas by the late Nelson Mandela and the Commonwealth. Kunle Ajibade, Chris Anyanwu, and others were jailed for being ‘accessories after the fact of coup’. The list of atrocities to remember is long. 

Under military rule, staging protests is an invitation to bullets, just as shutting campuses of institutions of higher learning and proscribing media houses were mere routine. At a period when many journalists and human rights activists ended up in detention or on exile, some of us were lucky. I once shared my own experience of verbal abuse, bullying and threats from Colonel Frank Omenka in the name of interrogation that lasted five days at the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) dungeon in Apapa, Lagos. While politicians contend with opponents, soldiers see only enemies. So, those who wish for a military coup in Nigeria must understand that it is no solution to what ails us. That, however, is not to say I endorse the irresponsibility in the public space that pushes many into such a morbid wish. That also explains why I will recommend to those who hold the levers of power at all levels in our country the book, ‘How Democracies Die’ by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. 

According to the authors, while there is a general tendency to believe that a democracy is imperilled only by military adventurers, it is now the elected leaders who most often subvert the very process that brought them to power. These are men who have no qualms “rewriting the rules of politics to permanently disadvantage their rivals”, the authors wrote before adding, “The tragic paradox of the electoral route to authoritarianism is that democracy’s enemies use the very institutions of democracy—gradually, subtly, and even legally—to kill it.” 

Those who have ears… 

Pastor Gandhi, The Kabiyesi 

Governor Seyi Makinde on Saturday announced the approval of Prince Afolabi Ghandi Olaoye as the new Soun of Ogbomosoland. Spanning five local governments, Ogbomosho is the second largest city (after Ibadan) in Oyo State. While the selection of Pastor Gandhi (as many of us from the old ‘Apapa Parish’ of the Redeemed Christian Church of God, know and address him) has come with excitement given his pedigree as a successful businessman, leader, and mentor, it has also raised several questions about faith and culture. I have heard many people ask whether a Pastor can be a monarch because of the notion that the traditional institution is tied to ‘occult practices.’    

I dealt with this issue a few years ago during the crisis in Warri Kingdom arising from the tension between Pentecostal Christianity and tradition. I referenced Richard Niebuhr’s highly revealing book, ‘Christ and Culture’, to demonstrate how Christians have attempted to deal with the challenge of their faith against the background of old beliefs and customs. Niebuhr identifies five approaches which he listed as: Christ against Culture; The Christ of Culture; Christ above Culture; Christ and Culture in Paradox and Christ the Transformer of Culture.   

Unfortunately, as I have also argued in the past, the Pentecostalism that has been embraced in Nigeria today fits into the paradigm of ‘Christ against Culture’, a notion which rejects all the traditional African mores as archaic, backward, and evil. The presupposition is that those traditions belong to some sinister gods that need to be dropped for us to prosper materially and spiritually. While expressions of faith differ from one denomination to another, the preponderance of opinion among pastors is that our traditional heritages (sometimes including priceless artifacts, dating back to centuries) are hindrances to our faith as believers hence we must do away with them.  

There is nothing to support this extreme and warped, even if dominant, position. Aside from the fact that culture itself is not static, the 89-year-old Awujale of Ijebuland, Oba Sikiru Adetona, spoke to this issue in his 2010 memoir. As a young bachelor in the United Kingdom 64 years ago, the Awujale (who is easily the most respected monarch in Yorubaland today) was brought home to assume the throne of his forefathers. In a rather cynical manner, the monarch made several revelations in, ‘AWUJALE: The autobiography of Oba S. K. Adetona Ogbagba II’ which suggest that most of the rites associated with the traditional institutions and coronations are myths. Even though I highlighted some bits in a previous column six years ago, they are worth recalling: “…As part of the coronation process, the Odis (aafin attendants) embarked on the various rituals that would lead to my installation as the Awujale of Ijebuland. Personally, I can say here that there is nothing about these rituals that could not be made public. In fact, many of the Odis performing the rituals were themselves novices to the rituals and were actually trying out their roles for the first time. It must be remembered that my predecessor, Gbelegbuwa ascended the throne in 1933 and my ceremony was conducted 27 years afterwards. Many of the Odis were at sea as to what was to be done. So, for many of them, it was all experimental and mostly guesswork. All the secrecy that they maintained about the rituals was, therefore, as I saw it, simply a ploy to extort money from the public, just as their fathers did before them. They deliberately made the rituals look very mysterious.”  

The Awujale was not done: “…at the Owa Stream, the Elese of Ilese carried me on his back across the stream as custom had it that my feet must not touch the water. After this, according to tradition, the Elese must never come to Ijebu-Ode again to visit me for the rest of his life. Also, at Odo Esa, I passed an Iroko tree which, again by tradition, I was told I must never see again. Indeed, I was forbidden to ever pass that very road again or, according to tradition, I would die. I did not believe any of this of course and I have since travelled that road and passed the Iroko tree on several occasions! Also, at Ijebu-Imusin, there was again another tree which I passed and which I was never to set my eyes on again, yet I have also seen this one many times. So much for all these unnecessary taboos!” 

All factors considered, I see no reason why any person who professes either Christianity or Islam cannot be a traditional ruler no matter how committed such a person is to his faith. Meanwhile, it is instructive that one of the first persons to congratulate Pastor Gandhi is the Grand Chief Imam of Ogbomosoland, Tellat Yunus Olushina Ayilara II, who called on all sons and daughters to “join hands with our Soun-Elect Prince Afolabi Olaoye in building a peaceful, harmonious and prosperous Ogbomosoland.” He ended his statement with a prayer: “May Almighty Allah bestow upon him, knowledge and wisdom, grant him long life and good health, bless his reign and increase Ogbomosoland in abundance.” 

I join the Soun-elect and my dear Pastor Gandhi, in saying Amen to that prayer. K’ade pe l’ori, ki bata pe l’ese! 

All around us, the barrel of a gun is seeking justice for the long-suffering, long-oppressed, long-pauperised, and long-marginalised African. Chad, Guinea Conakry, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and now Gabon, the military have deposed sit-tight civilian dictators and are railing at the French colonial masters that has sustained the caricatures of leaders in office. France has only acted in its own self, even selfish, interests; it has maintained in office spineless African leaders who let her exploit the resources of the erstwhile colonies for next-to-nothing. The colonies of France in Africa might have been given flag Independence; they remain, in words as in deed, slaves of the French. Their resources are mindlessly exploited to gift the metropolitan power the comforts and privileges of a First World country while the African backwoods remain, like the biblical Israelites of yore, hewers of wood and fetchers of water.

Now, the soldiers who have taken power in those impoverished-by-France African countries are saying, like the boxer, Roberto Duran, “No mas,! No mas!!” Yes, no more vicious exploitation of the God-endowed resources of the African people! No more the mindless subjugation of its long-suffering people!! The liberated people of the countries in question are applauding the soldiers. I, too, applaud them! I only hope that this presumed victory will not become ephemeral and that our joy will not turn into ashes in our mouth pretty soon; for such has been the experience with soldiers masquerading as messiahs, only to turn around to prove bestial leaders and worse exploiters than the civilians they booted out of office. That, for example, has been our experience here in Nigeria.

Will the French learn useful lessons and begin to revisit and review their assimilation policy? I doubt they will! Rather, expect that they will do everything humanly possible to subvert and upstage the military leaders now calling the shots in their erstwhile colonies and reinstate the status quo ante. It may take time but they will bid their time. The stakes are damn too high for them to do nothing. They have tried to climb on the back of ECOWAS but that has failed; it is not likely that the African Union will succeed where ECOWAS failed. Short of strongly-worded condemnations and sanctions, it is doubtful if either ECOWAS or AU can do anything more. Direct confrontation may also be out of it. The Russia/Ukraine war, in which the Western powers appear to have bitten more than they can possibly chew, has become a restraining factor.

Will other African countries learn the right lessons from the (negative?) wind of change blowing across the Continent? They can only do so if they first correctly identify the problems. First is that the mass of the impoverished African peoples, especially the youths, are tired of their condition and want a change. The “japa” syndrome is just a stop gap and not a real or permanent solution. The discrimination and indecencies that immigrants suffer abroad and the dwindling opportunities available as a result of global economic recession; the hostile attitudes that foreigners have to endure as a result are factors compelling frustrated Africans to turn their focus back home. Our own home must be made habitable just like the foreign countries have made theirs.

Corruption and bad leadership qualities are the twin evils that have stagnated African countries and peoples at the lowest rungs of the development ladder. It's not as if the Western world is corruption-free but they have leaders that are still development-focused; ours are not. They travel abroad and see how the societies there are organised; rather than come home and replicate the same, they come here, loot the resources and take them abroad where they go from time to time to enjoy the good life – they and their family members. Their children go to school there. They build palatial buildings there. They holiday there. They set stores there and also go there for medical care; name it. It is as if, if they replicate those good things here, it will diminish them and their own merriment!

The South African reggae artist, the late Lucky Dube, had African leaders in mind when he asked his rhetorical questions: “What type of a rich man are you/Who doesn’t care about the poor people/ What type of a rich man are you/Who doesn't care about the helpless people...Are you feeling happy/When you see another man starving/Are you feeling happy/When you see another man with no food? Does it make you feel great/To see another man without food?” It does really make them feel great and happy and fulfilled and accomplished – all rolled into one!

It has been said again and again that good governance is the antidote to coups in Africa but how many of our leaders are willing and ready to toe that line? In Rwanda and Cameroun and many other African countries, their response to the coup rage has been to purge their military – as if that alone will stem the tide of coup d’etat! At best, they only postpone the evil day. Sitting tight in office, turning a supposed democracy into a monarchy of sorts, like we have it in England and among the Edo people in Nigeria where the first son or first born succeeds to the throne: the son succeeding the father in Togo and Gabon and a family ruling an entire country for six or more uninterrupted decades!

An entire country becomes a family property or fiefdom passed on from father to son! It would have been less intolerable if such rule had been benevolent or beneficial to the citizenry but it has, everywhere, been dictatorial, punitive and oppressive; and like in the case of King Solomon and Rehoboam his son who succeeded him, the iron hand of the father has paled into insignificance when compared to the son’s. And we still call that democracy simply because of the facade of election, which is manipulated and rigged blind?

Let the wind keep blowing! There are still a few more sit-tight African leaders and kleptocrats, not democrats, yet to be blown off their seats. But let the wind stop at our doorsteps; let it not blow into our borders! The wind of coup d’etat that is blowing from the direction of Gabon, Niger and Chad should blow over us and land in Togo! The one blowing from the direction of Guinea Conakry, Mali and Burkina Faso should also blow over us and land in Cameroon! Since the Fourth Republic began in 1999, there has been no sit-tight leader here; the one that tried to rear its ugly head in 2006/2007 with a third term agenda kissed the canvas. Till date, he has kept wondering what hit him, choosing to live in self-denial as he licks his wounds.

The present run of democratic experience is the longest in this country’s history; nothing should truncate it not because it is perfect but because we need experience to learn from our mistakes. Practice, as they say, makes perfect, but the politicians must up their game. At the moment, they look like a bunch of people who learned nothing and forgot nothing. They are lethargic and laidback. They appear to have taken us, the people, for granted. Is it because the saying that the worst civil rule is better than the best military regime has got into their head? That is hogwash and crap. I do not buy it. I am a disciple of Alexander Pope who says: “As to forms of government let fools contend: what is best administered is best”. We have seen evidence of that elsewhere. Our misfortune here in Nigeria is that whether military or civilian, our leaders have been lacklustre and governance, abject.

As you read this, the presidential election tribunal will deliver its judgment today: Will it affirm Bola Ahmed Tinubu as president or will it sack him? While our neighbours are settling their own scores through the barrel of a gun, it is instructive that Nigerians have chosen to look up to the law courts. That is evidence of some progress made. We may not have arrived but we are on the right path. Our elections may not be perfect yet but we have made appreciable improvements. We may not have the best of the best in positions of leadership yet but if we sustain this democracy, the natural process of elimination will force the members of the old brigade to give way, whether they like it or not. If the lessons learned in the last elections are brought to bear by everyone, future elections will be better; so also the choice of leaders available to the electorate.

Do I expect an upset from the tribunal today? I do not. Antecedents support this. Realism also! But what if there are all the same? There is always a first time. Oh, I will take it in my stride and extend my hands of fellowship to whoever becomes the new or next “Emilokan!” The Supreme Court is the final bus stop, though, if the litigants so choose. But, please and please, let no one put us through the rigours and wastefulness of another election so soon after the last one! Muhammadu Buhari and his cabals ruined this country beyond belief. Whoever comes after him as president has the unenviable task of Sisyphus.

Why they are killing themselves to take on a near impossible task baffles me. Is it the love of Country? Is it the passion for service? Or is it something else? Reality must have dawned on Tinubu in the few months he has so far spent in that office. He has said so. He confessed so recently. Still, his opponents will not give up! There is something in this than meets the eye!

 The Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, in a landmark decision, yesterday, dismissed the petitions of the Labour Party, Peoples Democratic Party, PDP and the Allied Peoples Movement, APM, and their candidates against the election of President Bola Tinubu.

The five-man panel, led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, dismissed the petition of Mr Peter Obi of LP seeking to nullify Tinubu’s election.

It also dismissed APM’s petition seeking to disqualify the president over the invalid nomination of his running mate, Senate Kashim Shettima.

Obi’s petition dismissed

The PEPC, dismissed the allegation of the Labour Party, LP, and its candidate, Mr. Peter Obi, that the 2023 presidential election was rigged in favour of President Bola Tinubu.

The court, in its preliminary ruling that was delivered by Justice Abba Mohammed, held that Obi and the LP did not by way of credible evidence, establish their allegation that the February 25 election was characterized by manifest corrupt practices.

It held that though the petitioners alleged that the election was marred by irregularities, they, however, failed to give specific details of where the alleged infractions took place.

The court noted that whereas Obi and the LP insisted that the election was rigged in 18, 088 polling units across the federation, they were unable to state the locations of the said polling units.

It further held that Obi’s allegation that fictitious results were recorded for President Tinubu and the APC, by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, was not proved.

More so, it held that the petitioners were unable to state the figures they claimed were reduced from election results they garnered in different states of the federation, especially in Ondo, Oyo, Rivers, Yobe, Borno, Tabara, Osun and Lagos state.

It held that the Petitioners equally failed to state the polling units where over-voting occurred or the exact figures of unlawful votes that were credited to Tinubu by the INEC.

It stressed that though Obi and LP said they would rely on spreadsheets as well as forensic reports and expert analysis of their expert witnesses, they failed to attach the documents to the petition or serve the same on the Respondents as required by the law.

The court held that though the petition contained serious allegations that bordered on violence, non-voting, suppression of votes, fictitious entry of election results and corrupt practices, the petitioners failed to give particulars of specific polling units where the incidents took place.

It held that several portions of the petition that contained the allegations, were “vague, imprecise, nebulous and bereft of particular materials.”

Therefore, the court struck out paragraphs 9, 60, 61, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 83 and 89 of the petition.

Obi validly nominated as LP candidate

Nevertheless, the court dismissed the contention of the Respondents that Obi was not validly nominated by the LP to contest the presidential election.

It noted that the Respondents had argued that Obi left the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, on May 24, 2022 and joined the LP on May 27, 2022.

The Respondents argued that as at May 30, 2022, Obi was not a valid member of the LP and could not have duly participated in its presidential primary election.

They insisted that his name could not have been contained in the membership register of the LP, which ought to be submitted to INEC, 30 days before the primary election was held.

However, the court, in its ruling, held that the issue of membership is an internal affair of a political party, which is not justiciable.

It held that only the LP has the prerogative of determining who is its member, adding that the Respondents were bereft of the legal standing to query Obi’s membership of the LP.

Likewise, the court held that contrary to contention by Tinubu and the APC, the Petitioners, were not under any obligation to join Alhaji Atiku Abubakar who came second in the election or his party, the PDP, in the case.

It held that both Atiku and PDP are not statutory Respondents or necessary parties to the petition.

No evidence Tinubu was convicted in the US over drug trafficking
The PEPC also dismissed the allegation that President Tinubu was convicted in the United States of America, USA, on a drug trafficking-related charge.

The court, in its lead judgment in the joint petition filed by the LP Obi held that evidence before it established that the $460, 000 fine that was imposed on Tinubu in the US, was a civil matter.

It held that such a fine did not translate to a criminal conviction that was capable of warranting Tinubu’s disqualification from contesting the presidential election that was held on February 25.

Justice Haruna Tsammani, who led the five-member panel, held that a careful perusal of exhibits that were adduced before the court showed that the case that led to the fine that was awarded against President Tinubu, “was in the civil docket” of the court in the US.

He held that contrary to the contention of the Petitioners, the case was a civil forfeiture proceeding against funds that were in the bank and not an action that was against Tinubu as a person.

He described such civil forfeiture proceedings as a unique remedy that is targeted at a property and not the owner.

No criminal record against Tinubu in the US More so, the court held that Obi and the LP failed to show that Tinubu was indicted, arraigned, tried or convicted for any criminal offence in the USA.

The court further noted that following a letter the Inspector General of Police wrote in 2003, the American Embassy, confirmed that there was no criminal record against Tinubu in its centralized information center.

It held that both the letter from the IGP and the response from the US Embassy were public documents that are admissible in evidence.

The court maintained that the Petitioners did not produce any evidence to establish that Tinubu was tried and convicted for an offence involving dishonesty.

Besides, the court held that a period of 10 years had elapsed since the said fine was imposed against Tinubu, saying it, therefore, could not be a valid ground to seek his disqualification.

It accordingly dismissed that leg of the petition the LP and Obi filed to nullify President Tinubu’s election.

The Petitioners had among other things, challenged Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the presidential election, alleging that he was previously indicted and fined the sum of $460,000.00 by the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Case No: 93C 4483, for an offence involving dishonesty and drug trafficking.

They contended that such indictment constituted a ground for disqualification under section 137 (1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

INEC can’t be forced transmit election results electronically

On the issue of INEC failing to transmit the presidential election results electronically real time on its result viewing portal, the tribunal said that the INEC was not mandated to send election results electronically.

Tsammani said: “There is no provision for the electronic transmission of election results in the Electoral Act 2022.”

On the mode of transmission of election results, the tribunal said INEC is at liberty to define the mode it intends to use.

“By the provision of Section 52 and Section 65 of the Electoral Act, INEC is at liberty to prescribe the manner in which results can be transmitted. INEC cannot be compelled to electronically transmit results,” the court held.

On 25% votes, Abuja not special than other states

The PEPT also held that scoring 25 percent of votes in the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Abuja was not compulsory for one to be declared winner because FCT has no special status over the other 36 states of the federation.

Peter Obi wan about 59 percent of the votes cast in the FCT, President Tinubu got 19 per cent and Atiku Abubakar scored 15 per cent.

Speaking on the requirement claims by the LP and Obi, the panel said that FCT residents have no special privileges as the petitioners claimed.

According to the PEPC, Section 134 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) stipulates that a presidential candidate must attain or score a majority of votes cast in a presidential election, where two or more candidates are involved, and at least 25% in two-thirds of the 36 States and FCT to meet the constitutional requirement to be declared as duly elected as President of Nigeria.

The tribunal said the petitioners’ interpretation of Section 134(2)(b) of the 1999 constitution is “completely fallacious, if not outright ridiculous.”

APM’s petition against Tinubu incompetent

The panel in its first ruling dismissed as incompetent, the case the Allied Peoples Movement, APM, filed to nullify President Tinubu’s election.

The court held that the issues the APM raised in its petition contained pre-election matters that could only be determined by the Federal High Court.

Chairman of the panel, Justice Haruna Tsammani, who read the ruling, upheld preliminary objections that all the Respondents raised to challenge the competence of the petition.

Justice Haruna noted that since the petition centered on the qualification or otherwise of President Tinubu to contest the presidential election that was held on February 25, the APM ought to have gone to court within 14 days after Tinubu was nominated by the APC.

He held that since the cause of action bordered on a pre-election matter, the APM, lacked the locus standi to challenge Tinubu’s nomination.

More so, Justice Tsammani held that the Supreme Court had earlier decided that a political party does not have the right to challenge a nomination that was made by another political party.

He held that section 131 and 237 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, made provisions for the qualification or disqualification of candidates in an election.

The court noted that the main grouse of the APM was on the alleged invalid nomination of Tinubu’s running mate, Kashim Shettima. 

“It is clear that the claim of qualification is non-qualification of the 3rd Respondent (Tinubu) centered on the alleged invalid nomination of the 4th Respondent (Shettima). It is a pre-election matter,” Justice Tsammani held.

He further held that section 84(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022, stipulated that political parties should not impose qualification criteria on a candidate, except as provided for in the constitution.

According to the court, sections 65, 66, 106, 107, 131, 137, 185 and 187 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, settled the issue of qualification and nomination of a candidate for an election.

It held that where an election had already been conducted and the result declared, the qualification of a candidate could no longer be challenged on the basis of sections 131 and 137 of the Constitution.

The court held that since the APM failed to challenge President Tinubu’s nomination within the constitutionally allowed period, its case, therefore, had become statute-barred.

It held that where the constitution has qualified a candidate for an election, no other law can disqualify such a candidate except the constitution itself.

The court held that the issue of double nomination as canvassed by the APM, was not a legally cognizable ground for disqualification.

Besides, the court held that it found no reason why Mr. Ibrahim Masari was cited as the 5th Respondent in the petition since he would not in any way be affected by the outcome of the case.

Consequently, it struck out his name from the petition.

The APM had in its petition marked: CA/PEPC/04/2023, argued that the withdrawal of Mr. Masari who was initially nominated as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the APC, invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy in view of Section 131(c) and 142 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

The party argued that there was a gap of about three weeks between the period that Masari, who was listed as the 5th Respondent in the petition, expressed intention to withdraw, the actual withdrawal of his purported nomination, and the time Tinubu purportedly replaced him with Senator Kashim Shettima.

It further argued that Tinubu’s candidature had elapsed at the time he nominated Shettima as Masari’s replacement.

According to the petitioner, at the time Tinubu announced Shettima as the Vice Presidential candidate, “he was no longer in a position, constitutionally, to nominate a running mate since he had ceased to be a presidential candidate of the 2nd Respondent having regards to the provisions of section 142 of the 1999 Constitution”.

The APM contended that Masari’s initial nomination activated the joint ticket principle enshrined in the Constitution, stressing that his subsequent withdrawal invalidated the said joint ticket.

A former Vice President and candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, has vowed to approach the Supreme Court to set aside the election of President Bola Tinubu.

Atiku, said he was dissatisfied with the judgement of the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, that affirmed President Tinubu as the valid winner of the presidential election held on February 25.

Speaking through his team of lawyers led by Chief Chris Uche, SAN, the PDP candidate, said he only got a judgement from the court and not justice.

“Judgement has just been delivered but we have not received justice. Luckily, the Constitution has given us the right to go on appeal.

“This is the court of first instance. We still have the right to go on appeal to the Supreme Court and you see, this is a struggle that is not just for our client, but for the Constitution of this country, for the rule of law and democracy.

“We were expecting an outcome that will improve, encourage the use of technology to enhance election management, to enhance transparency, to enhance accountability, so that Nigerians will believe in democracy.

“So that Nigerians can come out in their masses like they did, to vote. We don’t want Nigerians to be discouraged.

“There are certain things and principle of law that he know that we need to explore and we strongly believe that when we get to the Supreme Court, it will have the opportunity to review a number of things that have been said here today.

“We have the instruction of our client to go to the Supreme Court. So, we have asked for the records. We have asked for the judgement. We are going to apply for the transmission of the records because we have a very limited time to push this.

“So, the struggle continues and as it is said, it is not over until it is over,” Atiku’s lawyer added.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has welcomed the verdict of the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal, affirming him as the duly elected president of Nigeria.

The announcement, which came on Wednesday, saw the dismissal of petitions filed by presidential candidates of the Labour Party, Peter Obi, and that of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP, Atiku Abubakar, among others.

Recall that in a consolidated judgment, Justice Haruna Tsammani who led a five-man panel of the tribunal, dismissed the petitions for lack of merit.

The tribunal said Obi, Atiku and the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), failed to prove allegations in their respective petitions seeking to overturn President Tinubu’s February 25, 2023, presidential victory.

Reacting to the verdict through his media adviser, Ajuri Ngelale, President Tinubu, who is currently attending the G20 Summit in India, lauded the five-man panel of the tribunal led by Justice Haruna Tsammani for being thorough and professional.

“The President affirms that his commitment to the rule of law, and the unhindered discharge of duties by the Tribunal, as witnessed in the panel’s exclusive respect for the merits of the petitions brought forward, further reflects the continuing maturation of Nigeria’s legal system, and the advancement of Africa’s largest democracy at a time when our democratic system of government is under test in other parts of the continent.

“The President believes the Presidential Candidates and Political Parties that have lawfully exercised their rights by participating in the 2023 general elections and the judicial process, which followed, have affirmed Nigeria’s democratic credentials.

” The President urges his valiant challengers to inspire their supporters in the trust that the spirit of patriotism will now and forever be elevated above partisan considerations, manifesting into support for our Government to improve the livelihood of all Nigerians,” read part of the statement.